No visitor logs for us! ...or tax returns, of course

President Donald Trump's White House will not release its visitor logs, a senior administration official said Friday, breaking with President Barack Obama and raising concerns about transparency.The decision to withhold the records marks a drastic change from the Obama administration, which posted the visitor logs online. The senior official said the administration debated whether to release the records for several months.Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/white-house-says-it-wont-make-visitor-logs-public-237235

No tax returns either. "Show us your tax returns" rallies called for tomorrow across the country. Hell will freeze over before we'll see them.There is no legal requirement to do so, and relying on him to do the traditional thing has no influence with him so we can forget that.

othershoe1030 wrote:President Donald Trump's White House will not release its visitor logs, a senior administration official said Friday, breaking with President Barack Obama and raising concerns about transparency.The decision to withhold the records marks a drastic change from the Obama administration, which posted the visitor logs online. The senior official said the administration debated whether to release the records for several months.Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/white-house-says-it-wont-make-visitor-logs-public-237235

No tax returns either. "Show us your tax returns" rallies called for tomorrow across the country. Hell will freeze over before we'll see them.There is no legal requirement to do so, and relying on him to do the traditional thing has no influence with him so we can forget that.

I am in a minority. I do not think transparency with who a president meets with is a good thing for a nation. I have no problem with those type of record being released two years after the fact, but releasing people who are visiting puts America at a strategic disadvantage if they are close to the actual visits.

2seaoat wrote:I am in a minority. I do not think transparency with who a president meets with is a good thing for a nation. I have no problem with those type of record being released two years after the fact, but releasing people who are visiting puts America at a strategic disadvantage if they are close to the actual visits.

Yes it's not good for Americans to know their fake president is meeting with mafia members.

othershoe1030 wrote:President Donald Trump's White House will not release its visitor logs, a senior administration official said Friday, breaking with President Barack Obama and raising concerns about transparency.The decision to withhold the records marks a drastic change from the Obama administration, which posted the visitor logs online. The senior official said the administration debated whether to release the records for several months.Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/white-house-says-it-wont-make-visitor-logs-public-237235

No tax returns either. "Show us your tax returns" rallies called for tomorrow across the country. Hell will freeze over before we'll see them.There is no legal requirement to do so, and relying on him to do the traditional thing has no influence with him so we can forget that.

If there're rallies in Pensacola, they'll be nice and orderly and PATHETIC! To do anything meaningful protests have to disrupt. Walking up and down the sidewalk, meekly obeying all the pedestrian rules is pointless.

There is no serious resistance movement here. It's laughable.

An example is the recent (pre-Trump) food truck protest. They just drove a line of food trucks down Palafox. If they'd really wanted to accomplish something they would have stopped the trucks and walked away for an hour or so. TANSTAAFL!

Trump'll never release anything if people don't start doing something more significant that shouting at dipshit representatives at town halls. Nothing happens until people start disrupting the normal flow.

2seaoat wrote:Nothing happens until people start disrupting the normal flow.

So if people wanted to know what meetings were held at the Pentagon, it is just a matter of the people being more disruptive. You should quit drinking and posting at the same time.

You have the historical perspective of a mayfly. Do you contend that the civil rights protests of the sixties had no effect? That the anti-Vietnam war protests accomplished NOTHING!

How is possible for a human being to be as old as you are and yet so woefully ignorant of the times in which he lived?

You, sir, are a disgrace to all geezerdom!

My suggestion is that, in the little time you have left, you educate yourself so that when you meet your maker and he asks you what happened while you were down there, you can tell him something other than "Uh... well, let's see: I was born, I lived and I died. That's about it."

2seaoat wrote:I am in a minority. I do not think transparency with who a president meets with is a good thing for a nation. I have no problem with those type of record being released two years after the fact, but releasing people who are visiting puts America at a strategic disadvantage if they are close to the actual visits.

2seaoat wrote:I am in a minority. I do not think transparency with who a president meets with is a good thing for a nation. I have no problem with those type of record being released two years after the fact, but releasing people who are visiting puts America at a strategic disadvantage if they are close to the actual visits.

Meetings involving delicate negotiations with foreign governments could be carried on by state department and other cabinet level individuals. By the time agreements are nearly done I see no reason why the public should not know what our leaders are up to at least to the point of seeing who they are meeting with.

I do not trust the president we have now and know he has had dealings in his business life with some very unsavory characters. Too much of what goes on with that man is more secret than what we are accustomed to. Why should we give him more freedom to work behind the scenes in darkness than we would give to a more transparent administration?

I know you were speaking in generalities and not about 45 in particular but the more I think about it the more I think it should be a requirement that they release the list of visitors to the WH. We still naturally don't know what was discussed but at least we'd know who the players were. Could that hurt?

If there're rallies in Pensacola, they'll be nice and orderly and PATHETIC! To do anything meaningful protests have to disrupt. Walking up and down the sidewalk, meekly obeying all the pedestrian rules is pointless.

There is no serious resistance movement here. It's laughable.

An example is the recent (pre-Trump) food truck protest. They just drove a line of food trucks down Palafox. If they'd really wanted to accomplish something they would have stopped the trucks and walked away for an hour or so. TANSTAAFL!

Trump'll never release anything if people don't start doing something more significant that shouting at dipshit representatives at town halls. Nothing happens until people start disrupting the normal flow.[/quote]

I agree with you to a certain extent. Disruption causes attention to be drawn and concern to be registered in the general public mind. I do think, however, that if protests are very large and widespread, as was the Women's March last January, then the politicians tend to take note. It was not a disruptive march but showed its strength in numbers. There is a place for that type of showing. Escalation to a more disruptive form often creates a backlash that works against the efforts of the demonstrators. That is one reason why the civil rights marchers studied non-violence.

2seaoat wrote:I am in a minority. I do not think transparency with who a president meets with is a good thing for a nation. I have no problem with those type of record being released two years after the fact, but releasing people who are visiting puts America at a strategic disadvantage if they are close to the actual visits.

Meetings involving delicate negotiations with foreign governments could be carried on by state department and other cabinet level individuals. By the time agreements are nearly done I see no reason why the public should not know what our leaders are up to at least to the point of seeing who they are meeting with.

I do not trust the president we have now and know he has had dealings in his business life with some very unsavory characters. Too much of what goes on with that man is more secret than what we are accustomed to. Why should we give him more freedom to work behind the scenes in darkness than we would give to a more transparent administration?

I know you were speaking in generalities and not about 45 in particular but the more I think about it the more I think it should be a requirement that they release the list of visitors to the WH. We still naturally don't know what was discussed but at least we'd know who the players were. Could that hurt?

2seaoat wrote:I am in a minority. I do not think transparency with who a president meets with is a good thing for a nation. I have no problem with those type of record being released two years after the fact, but releasing people who are visiting puts America at a strategic disadvantage if they are close to the actual visits.

Meetings involving delicate negotiations with foreign governments could be carried on by state department and other cabinet level individuals. By the time agreements are nearly done I see no reason why the public should not know what our leaders are up to at least to the point of seeing who they are meeting with.

I do not trust the president we have now and know he has had dealings in his business life with some very unsavory characters. Too much of what goes on with that man is more secret than what we are accustomed to. Why should we give him more freedom to work behind the scenes in darkness than we would give to a more transparent administration?

I know you were speaking in generalities and not about 45 in particular but the more I think about it the more I think it should be a requirement that they release the list of visitors to the WH. We still naturally don't know what was discussed but at least we'd know who the players were. Could that hurt?

What a mindbogglingly ignorant statement. Unless you're an unreconstructed racist cracker--which I suspect is probably the case--you'll have to admit that the civil rights movement of the 60s had an affirmative effect on American society. So let me cite a few examples where harming the rights of others worked to the benefit of all:

Rosa Parks and the Montgomery Bus Boycott in '56: This was the birth of the tradition of non-violent civil disobedience--the core principle of the movement--and it certainly harmed the property rights of the citizens of Montgomery by reducing revenue of the bus system until it had to choose between closing up shop and letting "nigras" sit in the front as well as the back of the bus.

[Let's keep score, shall we: del.capslock 1 pkrbitch 0]

Greensboro and Nashville Student Sit-ins from '58 to '60: The students, often against their parents wishes occupied ALL the stools at various lunch counters harming the rights of both the owners--no one else could use the seats to buy lunch--as well as the perceived rights of the racist majority. The actions provoked violence from the police and outraged white majority and brought national attention to the movement.

[Where do we stand, let's see: del.capslock 2 pkrbitch 0]

The Freedom Rides, summer of '61: These rides provoked mob violence which further increased pressure on the Federal government to redress this outrageous grievance. The riders wanted to integrate the interstate buses and the bus terminals. JFK eventually ordered the Interstate Commerce Commission to issue an order to that effect. The rides damaged commerce and civil order when the citizens of various towns rioted and beat the riders. John Lewis, Stokely Carmichael, Diane Nash and Julian Bond began to become prominent during this action.

[Drum roll please: del.capslock 3 pkrbitch 0]

The Voter Registration Campaign beginning in '62: These demonstrations happened all over the deep south and provoked riots, murders, arson and bombings. They led to the Civil Rights Act of '64 and The Voting Rights Act of '65 both of which enforced rights which were already enumerated in the Constitution. They severely damaged the rights of the white majority to maintain the status quo.

[This is too easy: del.capslock 4 pkrbitch 0]

The Birmingham Campaign in '63: This was when a thousand high school students joined the protest march which stopped all activity in downtown Birmingham and provoked "Bull" Connor to unleash dogs on them. MLK wrote his famous "Letter from Birmingham Jail" during this action. Four months later the KKK bombed the 16th Street church.

[C'mon, pkrbitch, get in the game: del.capslock 5 pkrbitch 0]

The March on Washington in '63: This needs no explication. MLK made his famous speech on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. Washington was almost paralyzed for the whole weekend.

[Game, set, match: del.capslock 6 pkrbitch doodley-squat]

Need I go on?

You're an idiot, Pkrbitch, with ZERO grasp of historical or social progress.

My point in a previous post is that it's Civil DISobediance that gets the job done. Obeying the rules and meekly submitting to the restrictions put on protests gets you nowhere. Carrying signs and walking quietly on the sidewalk is a waste of energy.

What a mindbogglingly ignorant statement. Unless you're an unreconstructed racist cracker--which I suspect is probably the case--you'll have to admit that the civil rights movement of the 60s had an affirmative effect on American society. So let me cite a few examples where harming the rights of others worked to the benefit of all:

Rosa Parks and the Montgomery Bus Boycott in '56: This was the birth of the tradition of non-violent civil disobedience--the core principle of the movement--and it certainly harmed the property rights of the citizens of Montgomery by reducing revenue of the bus system until it had to choose between closing up shop and letting "nigras" sit in the front as well as the back of the bus.

[Let's keep score, shall we: del.capslock 1 pkrbitch 0]

Greensboro and Nashville Student Sit-ins from '58 to '60: The students, often against their parents wishes occupied ALL the stools at various lunch counters harming the rights of both the owners--no one else could use the seats to buy lunch--as well as the perceived rights of the racist majority. The actions provoked violence from the police and outraged white majority and brought national attention to the movement.

[Where do we stand, let's see: del.capslock 2 pkrbitch 0]

The Freedom Rides, summer of '61: These rides provoked mob violence which further increased pressure on the Federal government to redress this outrageous grievance. The riders wanted to integrate the interstate buses and the bus terminals. JFK eventually ordered the Interstate Commerce Commission to issue an order to that effect. The rides damaged commerce and civil order when the citizens of various towns rioted and beat the riders. John Lewis, Stokely Carmichael, Diane Nash and Julian Bond began to become prominent during this action.

[Drum roll please: del.capslock 3 pkrbitch 0]

The Voter Registration Campaign beginning in '62: These demonstrations happened all over the deep south and provoked riots, murders, arson and bombings. They led to the Civil Rights Act of '64 and The Voting Rights Act of '65 both of which enforced rights which were already enumerated in the Constitution. They severely damaged the rights of the white majority to maintain the status quo.

[This is too easy: del.capslock 4 pkrbitch 0]

The Birmingham Campaign in '63: This was when a thousand high school students joined the protest march which stopped all activity in downtown Birmingham and provoked "Bull" Connor to unleash dogs on them. MLK wrote his famous "Letter from Birmingham Jail" during this action. Four months later the KKK bombed the 16th Street church.

[C'mon, pkrbitch, get in the game: del.capslock 5 pkrbitch 0]

The March on Washington in '63: This needs no explication. MLK made his famous speech on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. Washington was almost paralyzed for the whole weekend.

[Game, set, match: del.capslock 6 pkrbitch doodley-squat]

Need I go on?

You're an idiot, Pkrbitch, with ZERO grasp of historical or social progress.

My point in a previous post is that it's Civil DISobediance that gets the job done. Obeying the rules and meekly submitting to the restrictions put on protests gets you nowhere. Carrying signs and walking quietly on the sidewalk is a waste of energy.

Somehow a post made by pkrbum in post #16 in this thread is attributed to me, othershoe.

I did not say Blocking traffic (disruption) causes others harm. If your message can't be made peaceably... stuff.

I appreciate all the examples from the Civil Rights era. Even though the protests, sit-ins, voter registration drives, etc. were non-violent the reaction to these disruptive activities was violent. This is an example of an attempt to oppress the demonstrators by those in power. They were trying to maintain the status quo but failed, fortunately and rightly so.

As significant as seeing 45's tax returns may be it does not rise to the level of importance/meaning of the Civil Rights Movement.

What am I saying here in regards to the need to protest? 1) We need to protest in an effective way. The tradition of showing tax returns needs to be put into the law so weasels like 45 can't show or not show their returns as they see fit. It should be a requirement.2) Protests at town hall meetings may very well serve to get this law passed.3) In this time of social media the demonstrations are widely known and encourage others to take part. Large numbers are impressive as they show public support. All the resistance to changing or repealing the ACA killed that effort or at least contributed to its failure.

Finally, post 18 is confusing to me because the whole thing is "inside the box" so it looks as if del.capslock hasn't said anything, when in fact many good points were made.

2seaoat wrote:I am in a minority. I do not think transparency with who a president meets with is a good thing for a nation. I have no problem with those type of record being released two years after the fact, but releasing people who are visiting puts America at a strategic disadvantage if they are close to the actual visits.

Two years is way too long to wait and see who visited the WH. I could go for maybe a two day lag time. Are we afraid to see this list because the administration is plotting so many wonderful things for the 98% that we just don't want to spoil the lovely surprise? I don't think so.

2seaoat wrote:I am in a minority. I do not think transparency with who a president meets with is a good thing for a nation. I have no problem with those type of record being released two years after the fact, but releasing people who are visiting puts America at a strategic disadvantage if they are close to the actual visits.

Respectfully disagree. He is OUR employee. We have every right to know who he is meeting with, and I believe limited right to know the topics discussed.Excluding details of national security.

PkrBum wrote:Gotta love transparency... when it's the other team... lol.

What part of the original quote here, "The decision to withhold the records marks a drastic change from the Obama administration, which posted the visitor logs online," don't you understand???

Thank you Real for the perfect transition to this:

Definition of non sequitur: a statement (as a response) that does not follow logically from or is not clearly related to anything previously said We were talking about the new restaurant when she threw in some non sequitur about her dog.